What the documents look like
Returned-goods inspection works from four record types: the return warehouse receipt, inspection photographs, the grade determination table, and the resale listing sheet. Data updates per item and per day. In store service and internal training, these materials are assembled into a share link so store staff can review determination criteria or submit a handover request. Compared with in-warehouse picking and packing, returned-goods inspection handles reverse parcels and item grades, and does not handle new-order outbound. The share entry carries material display and request collection; it does not carry inventory writes or refund approval.
Two facts shape this page. First, the anonymous share window identifies a user through a localId that depends on the same device and same browser; the official document permits pulling the most recent 30 days and 20 records, and cross-device records require separately designed identity and session management. Second, identity verification sits in the commercial edition scope, and the official interfaces return success and uid to decide whether the user proceeds. Neither fact turns a share link into a business authorization.
Constraints at the shared access step
The anonymous window is created from the application detail publish channel, and the system generates a complete link. The link identifier locates the share entry and cannot serve as a business authorization. The point cap constrains the billing scope of the share entry; expiration time and QPM are checked against the actual version. Retrieval or a form collects values, and business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Hypothetical drill sample: a returned-goods inspection team at an after-sales warehouse prepares one return warehouse receipt, number RT-2024-0517, item a folding chair, return quantity 2 units, with the WMS return module recording status "received, pending inspection." An inspector drafts a handover note: "This receipt has completed inspection, grade determined as resellable, please have the store execute per the resale listing sheet." A request is also submitted: "Please have the store confirm and then list directly." The material text to be checked reads: "Return warehouse receipt RT-2024-0517, status: received, pending inspection; inspection photographs 3, no grade determination table attached." Both the drafted sentence and the request await judgment.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this drill | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Share link name | Returned-goods inspection criteria - store training | Used only for record display; compare against the actual store training batch name |
| Expiration time | Set to the seventh day after training ends | Set by the training cycle; compare against the store sign-in sheet deadline |
| QPM | Tentatively set to 10 | Checked as the maximum visits per user per minute; compare against concurrent store viewers |
| Point cap | Tentatively set to 500 | Checked against the billing scope of the share entry; compare against the estimated call volume for this training |
| Identity verification | Root address filled in | Commercial edition scope; check against the official interface return of success and uid |
| View quoted chunks | Enabled | Compare against whether training materials need to show quoted sources |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this drill and are not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating the share link identifier as inspection authorization. The link locates the entry only; grade determination and listing execution need a separate business implementation. Check: input the link for RT-2024-0517, compare the link identifier against authorization fields, and observe whether an authorization record exists.
- Treating "received, pending inspection" as "inspection completed." The status values are mutually exclusive; a record that does not state inspection completion is unsupported. Check: input the receipt status text, compare the drafted sentence "has completed inspection," and observe whether both fall in the same field and same period.
- Treating a store confirmation request as listing execution. The request sits in a pending-confirmation state and is not an approval. Check: input the request text, compare whether an approval result exists, and observe whether an execution record exists.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text "Return warehouse receipt RT-2024-0517, status: received, pending inspection; inspection photographs 3, no grade determination table attached," and compare the drafted sentence "has completed inspection, grade determined as resellable." If the source status field remains pending inspection and no grade determination table is attached, the drafted sentence is unsupported, and the evidence gap remains.
- Input the request "Please have the store confirm and then list directly," and compare whether a store confirmation result and a listing execution record exist. If only the request text exists, with no confirmation and no execution record, the request sits in a pending-confirmation state and does not constitute execution.
- Input the share link and the identity verification root address, and compare the official interface return of success and uid. If success is true and uid is a non-empty string, identity verification passes; if success is false, the message content is shown. A retrieval check observes the actual return and does not guarantee a first-position hit or full recall; an empty result is checked against downstream design using the paper input [].